1

CAMBRIDGE HISTORICAL COMMISSION 831 Massachusetts Avenue, 2nd Fl., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

Telephone: 617 349 4683 Fax: 617 349 3116 TTY: 617 349 6112

E-mail: histcomm@cambridgema.gov URL: http://www.cambridgema.gov/Historic

William B. King, Chair, Bruce A. Irving, Vice Chair, Charles M. Sullivan, Executive Director

William Barry, Shary Page Berg, Robert G. Crocker, Chandra Harrington, Jo M. Solet, Members

Joseph V. Ferrara, Susannah Barton Tobin, Alternates

June 30, 2015

To: Members of the Cambridge Historical Commission

From: Charles Sullivan, Executive Director

Cambridge Historical Commission

Re: L-100-102, Kendall Square Landmark Group

Kendall Square Building, 236 Main Street (1917-1925)

J.L. Hammett Co. building, 264 Main Street (1915)

Suffolk Engraving & Electrotyping Co. building, 292 Main Street (1920)

The Cambridge Historical Commission initiated a landmark designation study for the buildings at

236, 264, and 292 Main Street on September 8, 2011. By this action the Commission protected the

Kendall Square Landmark Group from unauthorized alterations for one year, or until September 7,

2012, while it formulated a recommendation to the City Council. CHC staff submitted a draft land-

mark designation report on July 10, 2012, and on July 12 the Commission voted to confirm the eli-

gibility of the three properties for designation. The Commission also voted to accept MIT’s offer to

extend the interim protections for 60 days. The Commission subsequently extended the protection

period on numerous occasions down to the present. The latest extension expires at the end of July.

The purpose of the repeated extensions of the designation study was to allow for resolution of the

community planning process that MIT initiated in 2009. The Institute’s initial proposal for their

Kendall Square real estate had envisioned razing the Suffolk building in its entirety and razing most

if not all of the Hammett building. Commission staff held that this would destroy not only two

buildings significant in Cambridge’s industrial history, but also the last remaining traditional

streetscape in Kendall Square. After five years of discussions with the city and the community and

passage of a zoning package by the City Council in 2013, MIT announced earlier in 2015 that its

current plans envisioned retaining all three buildings in conjunction with construction of six new

residential and laboratory buildings in the vicinity.

The hearing on July 3 is intended to address a number of overlapping issues, including

Expectations for alterations to the landmark properties

Expected demolition of E33, E34, and E55

Conditions attached to prior demolition of 18-46 Hayward Street and 28 Carleton Street

Conditions for resolution of the landmark designation study, such as MIT commitment to

continued staff review or a continuation of CHC jurisdiction for the duration of the project

2

Preservation objectives for the Kendall Square Landmark Group

The circumstances surrounding the proposed landmark designation, including descriptions of the

buildings and a discussion of their significance, are contained in the July 10, 2012 “Draft Landmark

Designation Study Report for the Kendall Square Landmark Group.” A copy of this report is at-

tached. It would require only minor updating to reflect recent history and current conditions.

Foreground: Suffolk Engraving & Electrotyping Co. building, 292 Main Street (1920); J.L. Hammett Co. building, 264

Main Street (1915); Kendall Square Building, 236 Main Street (1917-1925)

Suffolk, Hammett, and Kendall Square buildings, rear elevations. CHC photo, July 2012

3

The Kendall Square Landmark Group consists of three buildings:

1. Suffolk Engraving & Electrotyping Co. building, 292 Main Street (1920). The Suffolk (MIT

Press) building is a six-story reinforced concrete industrial building with its first floor about

4’ above sidewalk grade. It originally featured steel factory sash and an exterior of un-

painted concrete. The windows are modern replacements and the concrete has been repaired

and painted; its original condition is unknown. The two one story penthouse/skylight struc-

tures remain intact but roofed over.

Suffolk Engraving & Electrotyping Building, 292 Main Street. Left image: Architect’s rendering. Technique 1923, p.

564. Right: CHC photo, 2012

Preservation objectives for the Suffolk building include replication of the original small-

light factory sash; restoration of original exterior concrete finish, if practicable; and reten-

tion of rooftop structures. If done appropriately, alteration of the ground floor by lowering

the first floor slab and eliminating the spandrels between columns would contribute to the

widely-held objective of enhancing street life and commercial activity on Main Street.

2. J.L Hammett Building, 264 Main Street (1915). The Hammett building is a three story brick

industrial building with a slow-burning timber frame; the first floor is about 3’ above grade.

It originally featured 8+8 double-hung wood sash. The exterior masonry is in a good state of

repair, but the windows have been replaced with 4+1 aluminum windows with applied mun-

tins. Conversion of the first floor to retail use has been accomplished with little disruption to

the structure and without marked inconvenience to customers.

J. L. Hammett Co., 264 Main Street. Left image: R.E. Smith collection, CHC. Photo 1953. Right: CHC photo, 2012

Preservation of the Hammett building should include careful maintenance of the brick ma-

sonry in its present state. Eventual installation of replica 8+8 sash would be desirable.

MIT’s plans for this site involve penetrating through or cantilevering a new building over

4

the Hammett building, which could be incompatible with preservation of the exposed timber

frame. Careful positioning of the tower above should allow the Hammett building primacy

from the pedestrians’ perspective. Preservation of the façade only (a ‘facadectomy’) should

be avoided; perhaps the 1999 restoration and reconstruction of the façade and a significant

depth of the original structure of the Read Block in Harvard Square offers a precedent.

3. Kendall Square Building, 238 Main Street (1917-25). The Kendall Square Building is a

five-story reinforced concrete structure with brick cladding. The exterior masonry is in good

condition, but the original 8+8 double-hung sash have been replaced with inappropriate alu-

minum windows. Some storefronts, although reworked with aluminum, have traditional re-

cessed entrances and retain their original marble trim and replicated Luxfer prism transom

lights. One vitrine by the entrance retains its original bronze surround. The masonry of the

main entrance, although painted, is in good and original condition.

Manufacturer’s National Bank building, 222 Main

Street, 1917. Letterhead cut, 1919. Ellis & Andrews

collection, CHC

Kendall Square Building as extended, 1925. CHC photo, 2012

Preservation objectives for the Kendall Square Building should include maintaining the

brick masonry, storefronts, and main entrance in their current state. The clock should con-

tinue to operate. When windows reach the end of their useful life, more appropriate replace-

ments should be considered.

MIT’s Kendall Square Initiative

The Kendall Square Initiative has involves six related building projects, which are outlined in sche-

matic fashion in MIT’s submission. Several have preservation-related issues. Two directly involve

the Kendall Square Landmark Group, and one poses a question about future demolition of a signifi-

cant building.

5

1. Residences on Main. This high-

rise residential tower directly

abuts the Broad Canal and the

E.R. Luke (American Red Cross)

building, both of which are on the

National Register. The impact of

this project on these historic re-

sources is being resolved through

the Massachusetts environmental

review process.

Residences on Main, seen from Third Street

2. Replacement of Eastgate (E55). Eastgate, a 30-story building

with 204 apartments for married graduate students, was de-

signed by Eduardo Catalano and constructed in 1967. MIT

proposes to remove Eastgate once a new residential building

is built behind the Suffolk and Hammett buildings. A high-

rise commercial laboratory/office building would then oc-

cupy this site.

Redevelopment of the Eastgate site is probably at least five

years in the future. While Eastgate is not yet fifty years old, it

will become so in 2017. It is likely that CHC staff will find

the building ‘significant’ under the city’s demolition review

ordinance. MIT maintains that commercial development of

this site will be necessary to fund restoration of the Landmark Group. Current CHC staff

considers this to be an acceptable tradeoff, but of course cannot bind future actions of the

Commission.

3. “A high-rise commercial office/lab facility designed

to provide space for science and technology compa-

nies seeking to locate or expand in the innovation

cluster around MIT” will rise behind the Kendall

Square Building (Kendall Square Initiative website).

This building, to be designed by Perkins & Will, will

rise behind and adjoin the Kendall Square Building.

This project should have a minimal impact on the

Kendall Square Building, but a proposal to rework the

historic entrance needs further study.

4. A new high-rise designed by NADAAA and Perkins & Will is intended to contain graduate

student housing, a child-care facility, innovation space in the Suffolk building, and retail

space on the ground floor. In contrast to the square footprint of the lab buildings, the 24-

6

story tower has a long and narrow foot-

print designed to accommodate a double-

loaded corridor. The tower is oriented at

right angles to Main Street to minimize

shadows.

The siting of this tower above the Hammett

building is not inherently objectionable, but

requires further study to determine the ap-

propriate proportions and massing, location

of entrances, and possible structural changes

to the older building. The proposal to lower

the first floor of the Suffolk building to ena-

ble retail justifies the retention of the struc-

ture. Dedication of the upper floors to inno-

vation space is entirely appropriate.

5. A commercial office building proposed for

the corner of Carleton Street will include

space for the MIT Museum on two of the

lower floors, as well as ground floor retail.

The existing one-story buildings at 326

and 336 Main Street were built in 1927

and 1919, respectively, and were con-

verted to offices and a bank in 1968. I do

not consider them significant in the con-

text of the demolition review ordinance.

The large open space in the foreground of

this view will require the demolition of

two buildings on Carleton Street. The Rinaldi Tile Co. garage at 32-34 Carleton (E34) is

a one-story concrete structure with steel roof trusses built in 1923. The five-story con-

crete structure next door at 38-42 Carleton (E35) was built by Rinaldi Tile in 1924. In

different circumstances 38-42 Carleton Street might be considered significant, but as

these buildings’ industrial context has completely disappeared I find them not significant

for the purposes of the demolition ordinance.

32-34 Carleton Street (above); 38-42 Carleton Street

(right). Assessing Dept. photos

7

A related issue concerns certain design review conditions attached to MIT’s demolition of

18-46 Hayward St. in 2005 and 28 Carleton Street in 2006. The demolition delay ordinance

requires that no permit for demolition of a preferably-preserved significant building may be

granted “until plans for use or development of the site have been filed with the Building De-

partment and found to comply with all laws pertaining to the issuance of a building permit.”

Since MIT had no plans to develop these sites at the time, the Commission agreed to find

the buildings not preferably preserved, and MIT agreed that it would return for a public

hearing so the Commission could review and approve the permanent replacement design of

the sites.

Pre-2005 aerial view showing

32-34 Carleton Street (blue

dot) and 38-42 Carleton. 28

Carleton and 18-46 Hayward,

demolished in 2006-06, are

crossed out. Staff determined

the Tailby-Nason building at 4

Carleton to be not significant

in 2014. Prior to about 1960

the entire Ames-Amherst-

Wadsworth-Main area was

filled with manufacturing

buildings; only three former

candy factories at the corner of

Main and Ames, remain. Bing

Maps.

6. The plan for this site envisions a small office building with ground floor retail on a parking

lot next to the Kendall Hotel. No CHC review is required.

All six projects are envisioned by MIT to be part of a single development plan, which is being in-

tensively reviewed by city staff. MIT has begun the permitting process, starting with an environ-

mental notification form for the Residences on Main. Traffic and utility impact studies are under-

way for Planning Board review later this year.

Conditions for resolution of the landmark designation study

Resolution of the landmark designation study can be accomplished by submitting a recommenda-

tion to City Council for designation, maintaining CHC jurisdiction for the duration of the project

through extension of the landmark study protection period, or by ensuring MIT commitment to con-

tinued staff review.

8

MIT has requested that the Commission “close the landmark designation process and instead allow

continued design review with the Commission staff as is MIT’s practice on all historically signifi-

cant buildings. The broad resolution of preserving the buildings will provide a better foundation for

the dialogue and discussion that will take place once MIT has filed … Special Permit applications.”

MIT’s proposal resembles the 1986 protocol between Commission and Harvard University. That

agreement resolved a long-running dispute between Harvard and the Cambridge and Massachusetts

historical commissions over the nomination of university buildings to the National Register of His-

toric Places. In essence, Harvard consented to the nomination of over 200 buildings to the Register,

and the Commission pledged not to use National Register status as a pretext for designation of Har-

vard buildings as landmarks or to place them in historic districts without the university’s consent.

The university then agreed to review projects affecting its National Register buildings with the

Commission staff. This cooperative, largely non-binding arrangement has continued to the present,

and has involved staff review of hundreds of projects from the restoration of Memorial Hall and re-

modeling of the Fogg Museum to masonry repairs and installation of signs and handrails.

Recommendations

I recommend that the Commission discuss the preservation objectives described above with MIT at

the hearing on July 3. If MIT is agreeable, then I will recommend that the Commission consent to

MIT’s proposed resolution, subject to the condition that the Institute agree to a protocol similar to

Harvard’s that would cover the Kendall Landmark Group as well as all National Register buildings

owned by the Institute. Such an agreement should allow the staff to refer matters of disagreement to

the Historical Commission for resolution. If MIT consents to such an arrangement the Commission

would be justified in concluding the designation study for the landmark group.

This hearing should also be considered to satisfy the design review conditions relating to MIT’s

demolition of 18-46 Hayward St. in 2005 and 28 Carleton Street in 2006.

Attachments:

Draft Landmark Designation Study Report, Kendall Square Landmark Group (July 2012)

Harvard–CHC protocol (1986)